Bishop Egan is right: hardline secularism simply does not work – and never will

Into the space created by secularism will flood some other not necessarily benign ideology

Bishop Philip Egan has tackled the question of secularism, and you can read about what he has to say here.

His comments are welcome, and to my mind to the point. His main contention is that secularism alone, bare secularism, is not enough to provide a sound and enduring basis for society.

Everyone agrees – and it really is everyone – that a society must rest on some shared moral values. Without shared moral values, any form of social interaction becomes impossible, and any sort of shared conversation becomes very difficult. In Britain today, we may have already reached the stage where our common conversation has degenerated into a dialogue of the deaf (of the sort memorably described by Alasdair Macintyre in the first chapter of After Virtue, the single most important philosophical book of our time). People may use the same words, but they may have lost sight of the once shared meaning: as a result our national conversation becomes a cacophonous shouting match.

The question is – what is the best way of ensuring the survival of moral values? Iris Murdoch, an atheist, said, in her Metaphysics as a guide to Morals that “High morality without religion is too abstract, high morality craves for religion. Religion symbolises high moral ideals which then travel with us and are more intimately and accessibly effective than the unadorned promptings of reason.” In other words, what you need is a myth.

It is interesting to note that there are some totally secular states that make no reference to religion in their constitutions, but which nevertheless rely on a myth, usually related to their founder, in order to sustain and legitimise the state. The most obvious example of this is Turkey, a secular republic (indeed the most secular of states) which has promoted Atatürk, its founding father, to almost semi-divine status. North Korea, a place that would be comic if it were not so tragic, has gone even further, in creating a pseudo-religion around the Kim family; and America, which has a secular constitution, regards it almost with the same reverence accorded Holy Writ. I think these cults of founding fathers prove Murdoch’s assertion.

It is also worth pointing out that two of the most successful polities the world has ever seen also relied on religious foundations. The Roman Empire was given its charter by Virgil in the opening lines of the Aeneid in the lines where Jove gives the Romans imperium sine fine (boundless empire) and the mission to parcere subjectis et debellare superbos (to humble the proud and spare the vanquished). This myth was subjected to a fierce critique by Augustine in the City of God, and the myth was recast in Christian terms by the Byzantines. As such it proved to be remarkably enduring.

It is odd that an explicitly Christian constitution should arouse such hostility nowadays given the stability of Christian states, and the remarkable lack of stability shown by, for example, the numerous French republics, or the fact that other avowedly secularist states are nothing of the sort.

Secularism in the bare sense simply does not work. It never has done, and it never will. Nature abhors a vacuum: into the space created by secularism will flood some other not necessarily benign ideology. Moreover, secularism in Britain today is not working (though that is the subject of another article). Three cheers for Bishop Egan for pointing this out.

ravens leaving the tower yet? how about England’s abortuaries: a city the size of Hull de-materialised every year…and next, assisted suicide legislation- apparently secular society only manages with a profound blind spot…

Footsore Pilgrim

Your views are fantastic and very wrong

Nope, the Raven is accurately representing the totalitarian nature of your political views as expressed.

Again — you are not “we”.

teigitur

I see. I rather think “we” have been a disaster in all kinds of ways. Not least allowing politicians to erode our free speech, which no longer pertains in this society. As for “rights”, well everyone wants all of those, but not the responsibilities .Again the politicians have duped the people.

Vince

Regarding the first sentence of this definition : does this mean that free-masons are excluded from the political field ?

la catholic state

At present….the Catholic Church is having more success in nominally Protestant countries ie US and Norway, while in traditionally Catholic countries the Church is at its lowest ebb.
The Church in Britain should bear this in mind.

James M

Two headlines:

“Secularism is not a strong foundation for British society, says Bishop Egan”
“Bishop Egan is right: hardline secularism simply does not work – and never will”

## What is the difference between “secularism”, and “hardline secularism” ? The adjective implies a difference. If none exists, no adjective is needed.
And what is “secularism” ?
Would “secularists” agree w. the definition ? Or might some, but not others ?

It is surely rather important to avoid antagonising atheists & agnostics of good will – all atheists & agnostics have in common is, not being theists. It would be very unwise to treat all of them as though they were all militant ant-Christian immoralists. If we can’t agree w/ people or co-operate with them, we should at least avoid offending them w/o need.

“Secularism in the bare sense simply does not work. It never has done, and it never will.”

## STM that is doubtful. It is certainly not clear that Christianity works any better – and Chesterton’s assertion that it “has not been tried”, though it gets Christianity off the hook in one way, would astonish all those generations that tried to make it work. STM Christianity, like secularism, works best in small groups, but is much harder to apply to a nation. Any ideology, whether religious or religion-free, has cleaner hands if it is the ideology only of a small group – apply it to the social arrangements of an empire, and its practitioners will soon have dirty hands. There are no Amish atrocities to make them blush – but atrocities w/o number to shame Catholics & Protestants. This strongly suggests that Christianity, if it becomes the official creed of a large body of people, also becomes “thin and stretched” – like the Ring in the story, there are purposes for which it is not intended, which will soon corrupt & defile & distort it, if it is applied to those purposes.

The solution ? Maybe the Church would have cleaner hands – and escape much of its corruption – if Christians were content, as in the first century, to be a minority in society, acting as a leaven in society. If the Church wants to commend the virtues, let its members practice them, & not rely on laws. Christianity is secularised & paganised as it is – let the bishops look to that, rather than castigating secularism outside the Church. Then what they say may command some respect. But if the Church is no better than society, or is worse, then what they will quite rightly convince no-one.

James M

But…should there be, and can there be, such a creature as a “Christian State” ? Or is Christianity of its very nature something that cannot be put into political form ? Maybe it loses its soul if put into political form.

James M

Question: is equality (of some sort or sorts) a sufficient basis for society ? That seems to be the – unquestioned ? – premise that underlies your words:

“All [secularism] does is put those who believe, and those who don’t on a level
playing field. It ensures that the way government is organised is done
without any special favours being given to one belief over another. It
doesn’t exclude people of faith, or expect them not to have their
opinions informed by their faith.”

## And if equality (of some sort or sorts) is the premise, further questions need asking:

1. Why equality, & not something else ?

2. Equality in what respect or respects ?

There is another consideration. Laws often have unintended consequences, that sufficient prudence might have done something to avoid. So, what are unintended consequences of a secularist political philososophy likely to be ?

Is secularism equipped to deal with questions like the value of human life ? Ideas have their own logic, whether those adopt them see this or not. If secularism is pragmatist in its ethics, it is certain to collide with at least some versions of Christianity over matters such as whether euthanasia should be approved.

Secularism requires as thorough scrutiny as any other body of ideas. It is not a self-evident good.

Footsore Pilgrim

Just look at the exodus from the Church, for example

Is that where your 62 million came from, Henry the Catholic ?

Footsore Pilgrim

“we” might not be you, but it IS the rest of society

Right, and never mind your direct and gross self-contradiction of what you claim that “we” signifies …

Footsore Pilgrim

the deliberately pedantic

Thank you for your ad hominem

Bad penny

No belief should take precedence.

I see no posts which suggest what you do.

sclerotic

Yes. Great idea. Now, what shall we use as a blueprint? Munster in 1525? Geneva under Calvin? The Papal States, say around 1850 – castrati slavery and all. These were Christian states. You may say I didn’t mean it like that but if that is the case, what do you mean? A state inspired by Catholic values? Well, OK. Go out and form your Catholic party and persuade people that you can identify catholic values and that they have a real chance of working (capitalism? distributivism? divorce? capital punishment? I doubt you could get 10 per cent of practicing catholics to vote for you – as a guide the Calvinist party which tried to get a seat in Stornoway managed to get into triple figures – just).

Egan is not really wanting the catholic state. He just wants the state to conform to catholic values without the bother of all these tedious elections in which people ask awkward questions.

http://catholicismpure.wordpress.com The Raven

“I see no posts which suggest what you do.”

Only because someone has deleted the last month’s worth of posts from that particular individual.

Scheveningen

The Holy Roman Empire lasted a thousand years!

JR, Sydney

Over in the Antipodes it does…three cheers for the International Date Line!

la catholic state

Christianity certainly can be put into political form. It was for centuries inChristendom. Politics, contrary to modern Catholic opinion, is a legitimate human endeavour. If Christianity can inspire the economic sphere…..then so too can it inspire the political arena.

la catholic state

I think we’ll start with UKIP, which has the potential to become a pro-Christian, party of Natural law and tradition.

Bishop Egan is of course expressing a non politicised view, which is proper for the Clergy (I do not like a politicised clergy). But lay Catholics can and must marry Catholic Faith and values to the political structures of the day.

JR, Sydney

The very essence of militant clericalism…

URSULARICHES

I believe that just like our Catholic schools tending to have more popularity than most state schools, an authentically Christian Catholic political government would suit everyone better, it would be tolerant and know where to draw the line, compassionate and yet not want ultra big government -have the welfare state for the people rather than the welfare state to justify government.
Catholic means universal, most other faiths have more in common with us than secularism does. Atheistic secularism, along with its agendas is an authoritarian fundamentalist force in our society without tolerance for any refusing to accept its doctrines.

sclerotic

So will Egan campaign for UKIP or is he sensible enough to recognise that UKIP’s allies in the European Parliament are seriously unpleasant. And since when has UKIP had an economic policy, or a social policy that reaches beyond its own prejudices? (Anyone for cleaning behind the fridge as a staring point for moral regeneration?) I doubt any UKIP candidate could tell you what Natural Law is (or why it is regarded as a meaningless basis for an ethical system by anyone who can see the invalidity of deriving ought from is).

la catholic state

As I told you…..Clergy are not allowed enter the political fray. ( it’s against Canon law).

Supporters of UKIP may not be able to define Natural Law (I guess they don’t teach such stuff at school, which is astounding), but I think they have a greater innate understanding of it than LibLabCons…..highly ‘educated’ David Cameron included.

Tom_mcewen

What ! ”Moreover, secularism in Britain today is not working” of course it is, we almost have euthanasia to replace the Liverpool Pathway system. We expect great things from euthanasia, it is two pronged approach, we do the old and the unborn, soon the land will be at peace and the elites can drive in peace without the peasants clogging up the landscape.
Jesus wept.

Tom_mcewen

He also claimed it you do not have the mistress, you always have the maid. And that if you are going to sin, sin big. But then he also thought that being saved was a matter of holding your mouth a certain way and God’s freewill would disappear and he would become Luther’s slave. The worn ball bearings in the A/C must be squealing like pigs in the wall to wall heating where he is..

sclerotic

Why bother teaching it if we have an innate understanding? You’re not seriously suggesting that we are given an understanding of natural law from birth – apart from anything else no one can define it not even a Ukip supporter – Aquinas (definitely not of the Ukip tendency) tried (bonum faciendum etc) but it’s no help.

The clergy have long entered the politcal fray (think Manning, Nichols, Chaput, Levada et al) and Egan is no innocent – he can see as well as anybody that his comments are far from politically neutral.

la catholic state

Well only some people have an innate understanding of natural law, it seems. My bet is, the more in tune with reality and more humble the person….the greater their appreciation of natural law. That rules out a lot of people today.
The clergy must comment on politics…..but not in a political party kind of way. The only political system the clergy can completely support is one with Christ at its centre.

Man in Black

What a strange thread ..

URSULARICHES

It is contraception that we don’t have an innate understanding of. I was utterly disgusted by the contraception lesson in biology and thought, I’ll have a husband who doesn’t want sex all of the time if NFP doesn’t work and contraception or 20 pregnancies are the alternatives. Then I found out NFP really does work if you use the post ovulative method and use a thermometer. HAHA We had a baby in a jar at school and nobody could believe it would be a real baby, we were saying ahh its so lovely but it cant be real. Someone shook it and the poor little girls arm came off. How sick to leave babies in jars in formaldehyde- every girl without exception thought so!